At 35, Mr. J. was dying of an invasive pelvic sarcoma and had a tolerance to opioids. Despite his pain, he wanted to be present with his family and friends. When his physician broached the possibility of palliative sedation, he said, “We aren’t there yet.”

OBJECTIVE: To show how a simple Bayesian analysis method can be used to improve the evidence base in patient populations where recruitment and retention are challenging.
METHODS: A Bayesian conjugate analysis method was applied to binary data from the Thermal testing in Bone Pain (TiBoP) study: a prospective diagnostic accuracy/predictive study in patients with cancer-induced bone pain (CIBP). This study aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of a simple bedside tool to identify who was most likely to benefit from palliative radiotherapy (XRT) for CIBP.
RESULTS: Recruitment and retention of patients were challenging due to the frail population, with only 27 patients available for the primary analysis. The Bayesian method allowed us to make use of prior work done in this area and combine it with the TiBoP data to maximise the informativeness of the results. Positive and negative predictive values were estimated with greater precision, and interpretation of results was facilitated by use of direct probability statements. In particular, there was only 7% probability that the true positive predictive value was above 80%.
CONCLUSIONS: Several advantages of using Bayesian analysis are illustrated in this article. The Bayesian method allowed us to gain greater confidence in our interpretation of the results despite the small sample size by allowing us to incorporate data from a previous similar study. We suggest that this method is likely to be useful for the analysis of small diagnostic or predictive studies when prior information is available.

Good symptom management in oncology is associated with improved patient and family quality of life, greater treatment compliance, and may even offer survival advantages. With population growth and aging, the proportion of patients with multiple symptoms-both related and unrelated to their cancer-is anticipated to increase, supporting calls for a more routine and integrated approach to symptom management. This article presents a summary of the literature for the use of symptom assessment tools and reviews the management of four common and distressing symptoms commonly experienced by people with advanced cancer: pain, breathlessness, nausea and vomiting, and fatigue. We also discuss the role of palliative care in supporting a holistic approach to symptom management throughout the cancer trajectory.

Palliative care is seeing cancer patients earlier in the disease trajectory with a multitude of chronic issues. Chronic non-malignant pain (CNMP) in cancer patients is under-studied. In this prospective study, we examined the prevalence and management of CNMP in cancer patients seen at our supportive care clinic for consultation. We systematically characterized each pain type with the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and documented current treatments. The attending physician made the pain diagnoses according to the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) task force classification. Among 200 patients (mean age 60 years, 69% metastatic disease, 1-year survival of 77%), the median number of pain diagnosis was 2 (IQR 1-2); 67 (34%, 95% CI 28-41%) had a diagnosis of CNMP; 133 (67%) had cancer-related pain; and 52 (26%) had treatment-related pain. In total, 12/31 (39%) patients with only CNMP and 21/36 (58%) patients with CNMP and other pain diagnoses were on opioids. There was a total of 94 CNMP diagnoses among 67 patients, including 37 (39%) osteoarthritis and 20 (21%) lower back pain; 30 (32%) were treated with opioids. In summary, CNMP was common in the timely palliative care setting and many patients were on opioids. Our findings highlight the need to develop clinical guidelines for CNMP in cancer patients to standardize its management.

Background: Alexithymia, or difficulty identifying and describing emotions and sensations, contributes to an increased risk of chronic pain, and low help-seeking.
Objective: To investigate whether family caregivers of advanced cancer patients visiting a palliative care department had alexithymia, and whether this was related to their pain intensity, personalized pain goals, and help-seeking for chronic musculoskeletal pain.
Design: A single-center cross-sectional survey.
Measurements: Pain intensity was evaluated using a numerical rating scale. Pain improvement was evaluated against personal goals. Alexithymia was assessed using the Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20 (TAS-20), and anxiety and depression using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.
Setting/Subjects: Of 320 family caregivers visiting the palliative care department, 152 (47.5%) had chronic musculoskeletal pain; all 152 were included in the study.
Results: Alexithymia was observed in 36.2% of participants. Participants with higher scores on the TAS-20 tended to have higher pain intensity scores and personal pain goal scores. TAS-20 score had the strongest correlation with personal pain goals, with a correlation coefficient of 0.555 (p < 0.001).
Conclusions: Pain intensity in family caregivers with alexithymia tended to be high. These participants set higher personal pain goals (lower goals for symptom improvement) than those without alexithymia. We found no difference in personal pain goal response between family caregivers with and without alexithymia. When we examine pain in family members with alexithymia who are caring for cancer patients, we need to recognize that they may set higher personal pain goals and seek less help.

Purpose: Opioids reduce cancer-related pain but an association with shorter survival is variably reported.
im: To investigate the relationship between pain, analgesics, cancer and survival within the European Palliative Care Cancer Symptom (EPCCS) study to help inform clinical decision making.
Methods: Secondary analysis of the international prospective, longitudinal EPCCS study which included 1739 adults with advanced, incurable cancer receiving palliative care. In this secondary analysis, for all participants with date of death or last follow up, a multilevel Weibull survival analysis examined whether pain, analgesics, and other relevant variables are associated with time to death.
Results: Date of death or last follow-up was available for 1404 patients (mean age 65.7 [SD:12.3];men 50%). Secondary analysis of this group showed the mean survival from baseline was 46.5 (SD:1.5) weeks (95% CI:43.6–49.3). Pain was reported by 76%; 60% were taking opioids, 51% non-opioid analgesics and 24% co-analgesics. Opioid-use was associated with decreased survival in the multivariable model (HR = 1.59 (95% CI:1.38–1.84), p < 0.001). An exploratory subgroup analysis of those with C-reactive protein (CRP) measures (n = 219) indicated higher CRP was associated with poorer survival (p = 0.001). In this model, the strength of relationship between survival and opioid-use weakened (p = 0.029).
Conclusion: Opioid-use and survival were associated; this relationship weakened in a small sensitivity-testing subgroup analysis adjusting for CRP. Thus, the observed relationship between survival and opioid-use may partly be due to tumour-related inflammation. Larger studies, measuring disease activity, are needed to confirm this finding to more accurately judge the benefits and risks of opioids in advanced progressive disease.

Background: Cancer is a major burden of disease and a public health problem, as it is one of the main causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. It is estimated that 25% of cancer patients die without receiving proper pain management.
Objective: To acknowledge the epidemiological profile of first-time patients at the palliative care service of a referral center, along with the pharmaceutical treatment and social and familiar implications of the treatment costs in first-time patients.
Methods: A survey including 28 questions was conducted including 490 first-time patients at the National Cancer Institute in Mexico City.
Results: Median age was 53 years; 63.3% (n = 310) were females; 72% were married or single (50.5% and 21.2%, respectively). The most frequent diagnoses were gastrointestinal tumors, followed by urological, and skin/soft tissue carcinomas (19.8%, 12.5%, and 12%, respectively). Pain prevalence was 50.4% among the cohort. From the subgroup of participants with pain, 26.7% presented an intensity =7.
Conclusions: As most patients in our study presented pain, there is a need of strengthening public policy about opioid treatments.

BACKGROUND: Expressive writing involves writing about stressful or traumatic experiences. Despite trials in people with advanced disease, no systematic review to date has critiqued the evidence on expressive writing in this population. To synthesise the evidence of the effects of expressive writing on pain, sleep, depression and anxiety in people with advanced disease.
METHODS: A systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. CINAHL, CENTRAL, PsycINFO and PubMed were searched from January 1986 to March 2018. Other sources included clinical data registers and conference proceedings. Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials that assessed the impact of an intervention involving expressive writing for adults with advanced disease and/or studies involving linguistic analysis on the expressive writing output. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool was used to assess the level of evidence for the outcomes of interest. The protocol of this systematic review has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42017058193).
RESULTS: Six eligible studies with a total of 288 participants were identified, including four randomised controlled trials. All of the trials were in cancer and recruited predominantly women. None of the interventions were tailored to the population. Studies had methodological shortcomings and evidence was generally of low quality. Combined analysis of the four trials, involving 214 participants in total, showed no clear difference in the effect of expressive writing on sleep, anxiety or depression compared to an active control. Pain was not evaluated in the trials. In contrast, analysis of the four studies that included linguistic analysis alluded to linguistic mechanisms for potential effects.
CONCLUSION: Although the trial results suggest there is no benefit in expressive writing for people with advanced disease, the current evidence is limited. There is a need for more rigorous trials. It would be of benefit first to undertake exploratory research in trial design including how best to measure impact and in tailoring of the intervention to address the specific needs of people with advanced disease.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol of this systematic review has been registered on PROSPERO, which can be accessed here (registration number: CRD42017058193 ).

Objective: Polypharmacy (PP) is a burden in elderly patients with cancer pain; however, risk factors for PP remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to investigate the risk factors for PP in this patient population.
Methods:We retrospectively reviewed the medical charts of patients aged = 65 years with cancer pain who were treated at Osaka University Hospital between February 2014 and June 2016 according to the World Health Organization 3-step ladder for cancer pain relief. We defined PP as =5 medications and conducted exploratory research to examine the association between PP and patient characteristics. Performance status (PS) was estimated according to the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group system and is categorized as good PS (0-1) and poor PS (2-4).
Results: We reviewed 206 patients (122 men and 84 women) with a median age of 71 years (range, 65-89 years) and found that 174 patients (84.5%) had PP. In multivariate logistic analysis, PP was significantly associated with an increased number of comorbidities (odds ratio [OR]: 4.93, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.57-11.42, P < .001), poor PS (OR: 4.50, 95% CI, 1.06-31.68, P = .039), and administration of an anticancer or molecular targeted drug (OR: 2.78, 95% CI, 1.13-7.16, P = .025).
Conclusions: An increased number of comorbidities, poor PS, and administration of an anticancer or molecular targeted drug were considered risk factors for PP in elderly patients with cancer pain. Sharing these risk factors with medical staff will help reduce the occurrence of problems associated with PP.

Purpose. This study aimed to characterize breakthrough pain (BTP) and investigate its impact on quality-of-life (QoL) in terminally-ill cancer patients. Similarities and differences between high and low predictable BTP were also tested. Methods. Secondary analysis of a multicenter longitudinal observational study included 92 patients at their end-of-life. BTP was assessed with a short form of the Italian version of the Alberta Breakthrough Pain Assessment Tool. QoL was assessed with the Palliative Outcome Scale (0-40). Patients were stratified by self-reported BTP predictability into unpredictable BTP (never or rarely able to predict BTP) and predictable BTP (sometimes to always able to predict BTP). Results. In all, 665 BTP episodes were recorded (median 0.86 episodes/day). A median duration of 30 minutes and a median peak intensity score of 7 out of 10 were reported. Time to peak was <10 minutes, 10 to 30 minutes, and 30 minutes in 267 (41.1%), 259 (39.9%), and 30 (4.6%) of the episodes, respectively. Onset of relief occurred after a median of 30 minutes. Time to peak (P < .001) and duration (P = .046) of BTP was shorter in patients with predictable pain (n = 31), who usually were younger than those with unpredictable pain (P = .03). The mean (SD) QoL score was 14.6 (4.6). No difference in QoL between patients with predictable and unpredictable BTP was found (P = .49). Conclusions. In terminally-ill cancer patients, BTP is a severe problem with a negative impact on QoL and has different characteristics according to its predictability.

OBJECTIVE: The positive impact of early palliative care interventions in advanced cancer patients has so far been largely evaluated in randomised controlled trials. This study aimed at providing information on the value of early palliative/supportive care, integrated with standard oncologic care, in a real-life setting.
METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study of 292 advanced cancer patients consecutively admitted at Carpi Hospital in Modena, Italy, between 2014 and 2017. For the purpose of this analysis, patients were classified into two groups (early and delayed palliative/supportive care patients), and analysed for different clinical indicators. Early and delayed palliative/supportive care were classified according to the time elapsed from advanced cancer diagnosis until palliative/supportive care start.
RESULTS: A total of 200 patients (68%), with at least three visits, were included in the analyses. The frequency of chemotherapy use in the last 60 days of life was 3.4% and 24.6% in the early and delayed groups, respectively (adjusted OR=0.1; 95% CI 0.0 to 0.4; p=0.002). The estimated survival probability at 1 year was 74.5% (95% CI 65.0% to 85.4%) and 45.5% (95% CI 37.6% to 55.0%), in the early and delayed groups, respectively. Performance status, pain and all the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale items, assessed at baseline and at 1 to 12 weeks after the intervention, showed significant improvement over time. However, no between-group differences were found with regard to symptom outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: An earlier palliative/supportive care intervention was associated with reduced aggressiveness of therapy, in patients receiving community oncology care. Symptom burden was improved by early palliative/supportive care, independently of the timing of patient referral.

OBJECTIVE: To select outcomes and indicators of the Nursing Outcomes Classification (NOC), in order to assess patients with cancer under palliative care with Acute and Chronic Pain Nursing Diagnoses; and to construct the conceptual and operational definitions of the indicators.
METHOD: Expert opinion study and literature review. The sample consisted of 13 experts. The data collection was in own tool applied in face-to-face meeting and by e-mail. In the analysis of the data, it was considered between 75% and 100% of agreement.
RESULTS: Eight outcomes and 19 indicators were selected. The results with higher scores were Pain Level, Pain Control and Client Satisfaction: Pain Management. For all indicators selected, conceptual and operational definitions were constructed.
CONCLUSION: The selection of results and priority indicators for the assessment of pain in palliative care, as well as the construction of its definitions, will support clinical practice.

Background: Pain remains one of the most common and debilitating symptoms of advanced cancer. To date, there is a lack of studies on pain and its treatment among Malaysian palliative care patients.
Objective: This study aimed to explore the prevalence of pain and its treatment outcomes among adult cancer patients admitted to a palliative care unit in Sabah, Malaysia.
Methods: Of 327 patients screened (01/09/15-31/12/17), 151 patients with assessed self-reported pain scores based on the numerical rating scale of 0-10 (current, worst and least pain within the past 24 hours) upon admission (baseline), 24, 48 and 72 hours post-admission and discharge were included. Pain severity and pain score reductions were analysed among those who experienced pain upon admission or in the past 24 hours. Treatment adequacy was measured by the Pain Management Index (PMI) among discharged patients. The PMI was constructed upon worst scores categorised as 0 (no pain), 1 (1-4, mild pain), 2 (5-6, moderate pain), or 3 (7-10, severe pain) which is then subtracted from the most potent level of prescribed analgesic drug scored as 0 (no analgesia), 1 (non-opioid), 2 (weak opioid) or 3 (strong opioid). PMI =0 indicated adequate treatment.
Results: Upon admission, 61.1% [95%CI 0.54:0.69] of 151 patients presented with pain. Of 123 patients who experienced pain upon admission or in the past 24 hours, 82.1% had moderate to severe worst pain. Throughout patients' ward stay until discharge, there was an increased prescribing of analgesics and adjuvants compared to baseline, excluding weak opioids, with strong opioids as the mainstay treatment. For all pain score types (current, worst and least pain within the past 24 hours), means decreased at each time point (24, 48 and 72 hours post-admission and discharge) from baseline, with a significant decrease at 24 hours post-admission (p<0.001). Upon discharge (n=100), treatment adequacy significantly improved (PMI=0 100% versus 68% upon admission, p<0.001).
Conclusions: Accounting for pain's dynamic nature, there was a high prevalence of pain among cancer patients in the palliative care unit. Continuous efforts incorporating comprehensive pain assessments, evidence-based treatments and patient education are necessary to provide adequate pain relief and end-of-life comfort care.

Background: There is currently no established therapy for allodynia, which is a type of neuropathic pain. However, high concentrations of topical anesthetics can anesthetize the skin and increase the sensory threshold to tactile stimulation.
Objective: We aimed to evaluate the short-term effects and safety of 10% lidocaine ointment for treating allodynia in cancer pain.
Design: This was a randomized double-blind crossover study comparing the efficacies of 10% lidocaine ointment and placebo ointment for the treatment of static allodynia and spontaneous pain within 24 hours after ointment application, using a numerical rating scale (NRS).
Setting/Subjects: The subjects were 25 cancer patients with current pain rating of =4 on NRS of static allodynia in cancer pain.
Results: The NRS scores for static allodynia were significantly lower in the lidocaine group than in the placebo group at two to eight hours after initial ointment application. A total of 56% of patients (95% confidence interval 35%–77%) had NRS improvements of =50% at eight hours after lidocaine ointment application compared with 20% (3%–37%) after placebo ointment application. There was no interaction between time and group in terms of NRS values for spontaneous pain (p = 0.835), but a significant main effect of group was found, with NRS scores being significantly lower in the lidocaine group than in the placebo group (p = 0.027). There were no adverse events associated with lidocaine use.
Conclusions: Lidocaine ointment 10% can alleviate allodynia for two to eight hours after application.

OBJECTIVES: To summarise the current body of published evidence on the use of low-dose and/or adjuvant methadone in the palliative care setting.
METHODS: The authors searched multiple databases (PubMED, SCORPUS, EMBASE and the Cochrane library) for relevant articles using the terms 'methadone', 'palliative', 'low dose' and 'adjuvant'. The review was restricted to articles published between 2003 and 2018. Paediatric and single-case studies were also excluded. Evidence quality was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) method.
RESULTS: Our search yielded 171 results, of which seven met the inclusion criteria. Four were retrospective chart reviews, one was a retrospective cohort study, one was a case series and one was a double-blind randomised control trial. The overall quality was found to be very low. Of the seven articles, all seven reported some improvement in pain with the addition of low-dose or adjuvant methadone. This improvement was statistically significant in four out of seven articles; statistical significance was not commented on in the remaining three articles.
CONCLUSION: While case series and chart reviews offer promising results about the utility of adjuvant and/or low-dose methadone in the management of complex pain, the very low evidence quality, relative dearth of studies and near absence of randomised controlled trials make it impossible to draw firm conclusions. Thus, while very preliminary evidence suggests methadone is a potentially effective and valuable agent, further research must be performed before such findings can be implemented into clinical practice.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: People with cancer commonly experience persistent pain and psychological distress. Interventions are needed which address the multifactorial nature of pain and depression, yet few studies have examined the impact of mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) for cancer-related pain and depression.
RECENT FINDINGS: MBIs for cancer-related pain and depression can be effectively delivered across a range of modalities and show promise for alleviating mood and some physical health symptoms, although not always pain. There is some evidence for the cost-effectiveness of MBIs.
SUMMARY: The field of MBIs would benefit from greater methodological rigour and investigation into a broader range of cancer populations to increase the knowledge base and in turn the evidence base on which interventions can be developed to the benefit to patients with cancer-related pain and depression.

AIMS: Total radiation dose does not predict pain response in conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for bone metastases. By contrast, in radiotherapy for solid painful tumours other than bone metastases, it is unknown whether there is a dose-response relationship. We sought to determine whether a higher total radiation dose predicted a higher pain response rate in palliative radiotherapy for non-bone painful lesions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We carried out a secondary analysis of a prospective observational study. For patients scheduled for radiotherapy for painful tumours, Brief Pain Inventory data were collected at baseline and at 1, 2 and 3 months after the start of radiotherapy. The predictive value of total radiation dose was evaluated using the Fine-Gray model, in which death without a pain response was treated as a competing risk.
RESULTS: Of the 203 patients with solid painful tumours, 78 (38%) had non-bone painful lesions. There were no significant differences in pain response rate, the rate of the predominance of non-index pain or reductions in pain interference scores between the patients with non-bone lesions and those with bone metastases. Multivariable analysis showed that total radiation dose was an independent significant predictor of pain response in patients with non-bone painful lesions. This result was not robust to sensitivity analysis with Cox regression analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: Higher total radiation dose seemed to be associated with a higher rate of pain response in patients with non-bone painful lesions. However, this finding was not robust to sensitivity analysis. Dose-response relationship should be investigated in clinical trials enrolling patients with these kinds of painful tumour.

Cancer pain is an unrelenting symptom with the potential to alter the quality of life of patients. To adequately manage pain, nurses caring for cancer patients need to fully understand each patient's pain experience. The purpose of this study was to identify the intensity, distress, frequency, or constancy of pain in patients treated for cancer or cancer symptoms and to better understand patient barriers to pain management. This cross-sectional study included patients (N = 105) treated for cancer or cancer symptoms at 2 outpatient medical centers. Assessments included the Pain Barriers Scale, the Cancer Symptom Scale, and the Multidimensional QOL Scale–Cancer. Descriptive statistics and Spearman correlations were used to analyze the data. Sixty-nine percent of patients reported present pain of moderate to severe intensity that caused distress, was frequent/constant, or interfered with their lives. Patients with the greatest pain distress reported the greatest intensity of pain (r = 0.77) and the greatest interference (r = 0.78) with daily lives. Cancer pain was associated with significant distress and interference with life activities and occurred frequently or constantly for many study patients.